Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its controversial report warning against "right-wing extremists" in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups  animal rights activists, black separatists, tax protesters, even worshippers of the Norse god Odin  as potential "threats."

While many of the groups listed in the lexicon  such as Aryan prison gangs and neo-Nazis  may indeed be widely considered extremists, others will likely take offense at being described as a potential "threat."

"If you wanted to ruin a nation, and you suddenly found yourself with all the power of that nation at your command, how would you do it?

I think were watching part of that now."

Yup!!!! Ain't none of it "accidental", or "unintended".

I especially like how he "plans" to move the majority of our armed forces to within striking distance of a rogue nuke armed islame-0 fascist regime! I would get banned for expressing how I feel about them!

You cannot have organs of internal security without
an internal threat. In order to justify their existance
they must specify and apprehend enemies of the state.
This gives the lie to all the democrat handwringing
about “wiretapping of innocent american jihadists”.

This sort of use of the internal security organs against
possible opposition is totally Stalinist. What we have here
is a “nonobjective man wielding total power”.
Our nightmare is just beginning.

18
posted on 05/03/2009 4:51:16 AM PDT
by tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)

They are highly critical of the U.S. Government's response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend 'rights' to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver's licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education."

Oh, so there's degrees of opposition in not following a law? Sort of like just a little bit pregnant?

22
posted on 05/03/2009 5:03:23 AM PDT
by bgill
(The evidence simply does not support the official position of the Obama administration)

A movement of groups or individuals that embraces anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines and seeks to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. The term also refers to leftwing, single-issue extremist movements that are dedicated to causes such as environmentalism, opposition to war, and the rights of animals.

Rightwing Extremism

A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

You will note the differences:

On the left-wing:

A movement of groups or individuals that embraces anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines and Translation: note that they didn't label them "leftwing" in the definition, like they did "rightwing." That's because THE ONE® agrees with their ideology and considers it to be utterly normal...but they just have to work with HIM to bring about change.

seeks to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. Translation: Even though you agree with THE ONE®, if you are impatient with his programs and want to do so more quickly, we'll label you.

The term also refers to leftwing, single-issue extremist movements that are dedicated to causes such as Translation: You're good people, you're dedicated to a cause, but you have to work with THE ONE® in order to bring about change.

On the right-wing:

A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided Translation: Note the Label here. Using the term rightwing to define rightwing means that they consider adherents to this political POV to be somehow subhuman.

into those who are primarily hate-oriented, Translation: Have you ever gotten in an argument with a moonbat and their last dying gasp is to call you a "hater?" That's what we're dealing with here, folks: if you disagree with THE ONE®, you are a hater, and therefore a RW extremist.

and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. Translation: Yes indeedee folks, anybody who does not favor a HUGE monstrosity of a FEDGOV™ is an extremist.

This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. Translation: Note that with the left wing, they were causes. With the right wing, they are movements. A "cause" is a good thing. It supports something better than you. A "movement" is just a bunch of thugs all walking in the same direction.

“...no matter what.” That’s the kicker. When push comes to shove, the US Armed Forces are not going to line up behind to some Phony Crackpot Kenyan Usurper. Especialy one who’s major goal is to invalidate the Constitution and destroy this country.

I’ll bet money on that. The tide is already turning on O’Bummer.

He’s in deep doo doo and he knows it. I’ll give him 18 more months, from today, at the outside.

The demonratz/demihogs just won’t be able to pull it off. The longer this lasts the more drastic he and his syncophats will become. When they start to disintergrate they will become even more frenetic in their attempts to make this a one-party nation.

O’Bummer has at least one major fault; his personality. He’s more the Pee Wee Herman personality than the Joseph Stalin or Genghis Khan type.

They’re all a bunch of cowboy ballerinas; can’t wait to shoot themselves in the foot.

A movement of groups or individuals who advocate a society devoid of government structure or ownership of individual property. Many embrace some of the radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements. Anarchist extremists advocate changing government and society through revolutionary violence.

So, by this definition the Foundesr of the United States would have been on the list. Although they probably DO see our Founders as extremists.

And, ironies of ironies, so would the current administration for its espousal of " of the radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements"

I bet they don't see it that way though.

26
posted on 05/03/2009 5:21:20 AM PDT
by raybbr
(It's going to get a lot worse now that the anchor babies are voting!)

Yes they do. But you can take the power away from those words. When a liberal calls me an “extremist”, I just tell her “Hell yeah!” and explain that when a marxist calls me an extremist, that means I’m doing something right.

That’s what these DHS memos tell me. We are scaring them, so they are resorting to name-calling. If we continue, they will escalate to “name-calling in a shrill voice” and eventually “name-calling in a shrill voice with frantic finger pointing.”

Oh, so there's degrees of opposition in not following a law? Sort of like just a little bit pregnant?

I've read just about all the definitions. It looks to me as if anyone can fall under any one of the definitions. It's so broad that unless you sit home and never say a word against the govt. you will be on the list.

32
posted on 05/03/2009 5:33:48 AM PDT
by raybbr
(It's going to get a lot worse now that the anchor babies are voting!)

Dr. Ferris did not notice the sudden look on Rearden's face, the look of a man hit by the first vision of that which he had sought to see.

Dr. Ferris was past the stage of seeing; he was intent upon delivering the last blows to an animal caught in a trap.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up againstthen you'll know that this not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it.

You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.

Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpretedand you create a nation of law-breakersand then you cash in on guilt.

Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

39
posted on 05/03/2009 5:56:00 AM PDT
by LuxMaker
(The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, Thomas J 1819)

obama and the Democrat Party’s policies will ensure that we are completely and totally destroyed as a Nation. While the Republican Party stands around, nodding their heads in agreement, and snickering.

Forget about the Republicans re-taking control of Congress in 2010. ACORN,the media, and voting idiots , and the Republican Party will see that it does not happen.

Ditto with 2012.

Man is in control of the United States destiny now. Almighty God has and the influencr of Almighty God has and is being bannished. unless the United States returns to the God of the Bible, nothing but disaster awaits down the road.

The Founders were certainly extremists and certainly on the 18th century DHS list. The would have all been hung as traitors had the war turned out differently. barbra ann

Hmmmm.... Interesting point. However, the Founders knew they were creating something based on liberty. They recognized the need for revolution in order to gain their freedom.

Today's liberal thinks just the opposite. He's opposed to freedom by supporting govt. Most of them don't realize it but that's what they are doing. They can't think for themselves. If they could they would realize that they are actually building the chains that will bind them in the future.

41
posted on 05/03/2009 6:01:40 AM PDT
by raybbr
(It's going to get a lot worse now that the anchor babies are voting!)

What's up with these reports? This is another one that was originally created on Jan 23, 2007, 1:32:54pm.

But unlike the 'right wing extremest' one this one was revised on March 26, 2009, 1:53:08 pm, not April. Annnd if this one was revised first, why was it released second? Oh well, on the upside this one defines Barry, his entire Admin, and all his friends as extremists too.

I don't believe they had that in mind.

43
posted on 05/03/2009 6:04:08 AM PDT
by Condor51
(The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)

You are a terrorist if you are against illegal activity and want the nation’s laws enforced.

“Anti-immigration extremism,” the lexicon defines as “a movement of groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico, and who have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals. They are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend ‘rights’ to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.”

(U) alternative media (U//FOUO) A term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.

Interesting definition. Does this mean:

1. The Internet as a whole?

2. Just the parts of the Internet that aren't part of the mass media?

3. Just the parts of the Internet that they disagree with?

4. Fox news as a whole, since Fox frequently offers "radically" different interpretations that the main stream media?

5. Just the parts of Fox news they disagree with, such as The Factor and Glenn Beck?

6. Conservative talk radio?

7. All of the above?

There is some really, really scary thinking embodied in this definition. Primarily that only the main stream media's view represents truth and reality.

Folks, this thinking is right out of "1984"!

Please everyone, you must re-read this book!

48
posted on 05/03/2009 6:50:23 AM PDT
by catnipman
(Cat Nipman: Made from The Right Stuff)

alternative media (U//FOUO) A term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.